President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

frostyjacks

Whereabouts did he lie under oath?

“Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?”

“No"

So he could still have met with the ambassador, but if he didn't discuss the election he's in the clear. It's just more anti-Trump, anti-democracy mudslinging.

eire4

MadYaker wrote: »

Trump supporters reactions to this stuff is always interesting. This time they seem to be totally missing the point here. The problem isn't necessarily his contact with Russians during the campaign (although that is unusual) the problem is that he lied about it. I don't get it. If I was an American voter regardless of who I voted for I would want to know the truth behind what is going on here. Sessions obviously lied for a reason. Yet most Trump supporters just don't seem to care.

Sadly your absolutely right there about the mindset of the hardcore Trump supporters. To be fair though I think at this point given Trumps poor approval ratings it would be fair to say that most Americans would be happy to see a fully independent investigation at this point.

On another note it will be interesting to see how the Trump administration plays Sessions situation. The fact of it is that the AG of the US lied under oath to congress during his confirmation hearings and lied about a major topic. I am thinking they will try and spin this and defend Sessions but there is no question there will be very serious pressure for him to resign now altogether. Sessions recusing himself from the current investigations into Russian influence in the last US elections is I would think a done deal the pressure will really be about his having to resign given he lied to congress.

Igotadose

frostyjacks wrote: »

Whereabouts did he lie under oath?

“Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?”

“No"

So he could still have met with the ambassador, but if he didn't discuss the election he's in the clear. It's just more anti-Trump, anti-democracy mudslinging.

testimony during his confirmation hearing:

"SESSIONS: "I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."
DATE: January 10"

And the confirmation hearings are under oath. Lying to congress - not good.

And, exactly how is this anti-democracy? Freedom of the press being exercised here, all good. Rule of law (can't lie to Congress), also good. Possibility that using the defined procedures enshrined in the Constitution and related laws, the US Attorney General might be indicted? Definitely good and democratic - no one's above the law, not the President, not his cabinet, if you're in the US, not you either.

frostyjacks

Igotadose wrote: »

testimony during his confirmation hearing:

"SESSIONS: "I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."
DATE: January 10"

And the confirmation hearings are under oath. Lying to congress - not good.

And, exactly how is this anti-democracy? Freedom of the press being exercised here, all good. Rule of law (can't lie to Congress), also good. Possibility that using the defined procedures enshrined in the Constitution and related laws, the US Attorney General might be indicted? Definitely good and democratic - no one's above the law, not the President, not his cabinet, if you're in the US, not you either.

He was asked if it was in relation to the campaign, and he said no. I'm sorry, but he hasn't lied.

jobbridge4life

https://twitter.com/aaronzitner/status/837356340745994241

How much more of this is out there? Will it ever be enough for something to properly taint Trump?

InTheTrees

frostyjacks wrote: »

He was asked if it was in relation to the campaign, and he said no. I'm sorry, but he hasn't lied.

Except that now he claims he met with the Russians (during the election campaign) purely in his capacity as a member of the armed services committee.

Except... Nobody else on the armed services committee has ever met with or had reason to meet with the Russian ambassador nor has anyone got an explanation (sessions can't explain it either) as to why he would need to talk to the Russian ambassador.

mcmoustache

frostyjacks wrote: »

He was asked if it was in relation to the campaign, and he said no. I'm sorry, but he hasn't lied.

He wasn't just asked one question about the Russians. I know that r/The_Dpnald, Breitbart, Infowars and Storfmront are spinning it differently but that's to be expected.

ECO_Mental

frostyjacks wrote: »

Whereabouts did he lie under oath?

“Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?”

“No"

So he could still have met with the ambassador, but if he didn't discuss the election he's in the clear. It's just more anti-Trump, anti-democracy mudslinging.

You don't get it obviously... He was asked under oath twice, once verbally and once in a written question did he meet with any russians and he said NO

If he said yes then he's in the clear, maybe he did have a legit reason to meet these guys.

But he said "NO"so he lied under oath and that's a felon.....

Simple really! no ifs, no buts, no nothing he broke the law and he is the attorney general so he cannot break the law.

Lying under oath that's as serious as it gets he just didn't want to answer any questions about what was said on these meetings

Igotadose

frostyjacks wrote: »

He was asked if it was in relation to the campaign, and he said no. I'm sorry, but he hasn't lied.

But you agree that pursuing this line of inquiry by the media and the government is democracy in action? I'm more concerned about that, than who lied when, or how, or who. Really it's good to see that democracy in the US is flourishing under this administration.

Frank Bullitt

frostyjacks wrote: »

He was asked if it was in relation to the campaign, and he said no. I'm sorry, but he hasn't lied.

He has lied, how can you even try to say otherwise???

Sonics2k

Gintonious wrote: »

He has lied, how can you even try to say otherwise???

It's called an agenda and it's hugely ironic considering how much Trump supporters complain about it.

It's fine to support Trump, bit at least be honest when another one of his guys is in trouble for lying

wonderfullife

frostyjacks wrote: »

Whereabouts did he lie under oath?

“Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?”

“No"

So he could still have met with the ambassador, but if he didn't discuss the election he's in the clear. It's just more anti-Trump, anti-democracy mudslinging.

Sessions own spokeswoman said this about the Kislyak meetings:

"superficial comments about election-related news, not substance of their discussion".

So, when he was asked did he have contact with Russian government about the 2016 election, the answer is YES.

HE LIED UNDER OATH.

Simple.

It would be like me meeting you for a coffee to discuss the rugby. We spend 55 mins talking about rugby. And spend 5 mins talking about soccer.

And if i'm asked under oath:

"Have you been in contact with Frostyjacks about soccer?".

If i say "NO" then I'm lying. We bloody discussed it.

The truth is answering "YES I briefly discussed soccer with Frostyjacks but the bulk of our coffee was spent discussing rugby".

The REASON he lied is because if he told the truth he'd have gotten 5 dozen more difficult questions. When did you meet him? Where? For how long? Under what circumstances? etc etc.

Telling the truth would have jeopardized his nomination.

HE LIED UNDER OATH and all these "But Hillary", "But Bill", "But Obama", "But Holder", "But Lynch" answers are IRRELEVANT.

Leroy42

frostyjacks wrote: »

Whereabouts did he lie under oath?

“Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?”

“No"

So he could still have met with the ambassador, but if he didn't discuss the election he's in the clear. It's just more anti-Trump, anti-democracy mudslinging.

Sen Franklin : "If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian Government in the course of this campaign, what would you do?"

Sen Sessions : "Senator Franklin, I am not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have communications with the Russians"

He wasn't asked what they discussed, he wasn't even asked if he had meet them. He offered that piece of information (lie) all on his own. He did that under oath. I'm not sure what you call lying under oath, but there is a reason why they are asked to take an oath before giving their answers, it is because there are serious consequences to lying under oath.

Even his own spokesperson have accepted that he met with the Russian Ambassador during the campaign. Its as cut and dried a gotcha as you are ever likely to see.

He lied. Simple as. The only question is whether to ditch him, so soon after Flynn and so early in the administration, or to battle to keep him is the least worst option.

wonderfullife

Anyone with half a brain can see where this rabbit hole leads.

It probably leads to this:

Team Trump facing a 10-12 point deficit in the Polls, get in touch with the Russians.

Trump Team: oi, a little help here. Hack the DNC. Unleash your army of Twitter bots. Get us dirt we need to give us a shot.

Russians: "What's in it for us if you win?".

Trump Team: Well, how about 1. Sanctions lifted when heat dies down 2. Pick someone for Secretary of State?

Russians: Ok cool. Vlads friend Tillerson. We want the $500 billion oil deal going through, no hassle over Crimea for the pipeline and there'll be 19% of Rosneft in it for Trump as a sweetener.

Trump Team: Yeah that's cool. We may still lose though obviously?

Russians: Yeah, we know. It'll still be good to FCUK with your elections


And the thing is, Republicans and Trump fans couldn't care less because:

1. We won.
2. So what if they committed treason.
3. Tax cuts for the rich WOOP WOOP
4. Sort out Supreme Court
5. We won

It'll (probably) all come out in the end. The Intelligence Community have all the dirt. It's just timing.

Frank Bullitt

Trump is giving a speech right now...back to his old self.

Hank Scorpio

wonderfullife wrote: »

Anyone with half a brain can see where this rabbit hole leads.

It probably leads to this:

Team Trump facing a 10-12 point deficit in the Polls, get in touch with the Russians.

Trump Team: oi, a little help here. Hack the DNC. Unleash your army of Twitter bots. Get us dirt we need to give us a shot.

Russians: "What's in it for us if you win?".

Trump Team: Well, how about 1. Sanctions lifted when heat dies down 2. Pick someone for Secretary of State?

Russians: Ok cool. Vlads friend Tillerson. We want the $500 billion oil deal going through, no hassle over Crimea for the pipeline and there'll be 19% of Rosneft in it for Trump as a sweetener.

Trump Team: Yeah that's cool. We may still lose though obviously?

Russians: Yeah, we know. It'll still be good to FCUK with your elections


And the thing is, Republicans and Trump fans couldn't care less because:

1. We won.
2. So what if they committed treason.
3. Tax cuts for the rich WOOP WOOP
4. Sort out Supreme Court
5. We won

It'll (probably) all come out in the end. The Intelligence Community have all the dirt. It's just timing.

God almighty, the desperation is well and truly starting to reek to the point it's gone far past embarrassing.

Itssoeasy

AG Jeff sessions is speaking now from the dept of justice.

Itssoeasy

Jeff sessions is going to recuse himself from any existing/future investigations involving the campaign.

Itssoeasy

Jeff sessions sounds like someone who will implicate himself and put his foot in his mouth at any second. He's a bit too lose with words and thoughts.

Frank Bullitt

Sessions is stepping aside from the FBI inquiry to the Russians messing with the election. Nothing to see here.

Akrasia

Gintonious wrote: »

Sessions is stepping aside from the FBI inquiry to the Russians messing with the election. Nothing to see here.

I wonder how far he can really recuse himself. Someone from his department will have to investigate, will he just pick someone loyal to him to do a whitewash investigation?

wonderfullife

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

God almighty, the desperation is well and truly starting to reek to the point it's gone far past embarrassing.

In 2008 Mr. Donald Trump was stuck for cash and being sued by Deustche Bank for 60 million quid.

By a stroke of sheer luck, a Russian billionaire by the name of Dmitry Rybolovlev decided to pay $100 million for a Palm Beach property Trump bought in 2005 for $40 million. Nice little $60 million quid profit on a premises Trump "renovated" despite reports it was infested with damp and other issues at time of 2008 purchase.

That building was never lived in since and has been torn down.

Rybolovlev is a major shareholder in Bank of Cyprus. He's also great pals with V. Putin. The majority shareholder in Bank of Cyprus is Wilbur Ross, who recently got appointed to Trumps cabinet.

The $100 million was paid in cash. Nice timing for a cash injection.

Trump claims to have never met Rybolovlev. Interestingly in the 12 months before the election, Rybolovlev flew into American cities 6 times and on each occasion Trump was in the same city at the same weekend for a campaign stump. But, obviously, all coincidence.

This is one transaction that is on public record. Rybolovlev was buying everything in sight across the globe so his wife wouldn't get the money in the divorce.

How many other properties did he buy from Trump globally? How many did Trump buy for $10 million and sell for $80 million to his pal Dmitry he "never met"? How much in the way of artwork did Trump privately sell him? Again at inflated prices.

See, you might think this all "reeks of desperation" but these are the type of questions that might actually get very concerning if/when Putin initiates aggression in Ukraine and Georgia and goes unchecked by USA. Or, worse, USA vetoes resolutions in the Security Council.

It's 100% fair for Americans and, the world, to know just how badly Russia has Trump by the balls. How much dodgy money has been pumped through Trump over the last few decades? How much does he owe and to who?

Would you find it even remotely suspicious if Hillary Clinton bought a house and sold it for a $60 million profit to a Chinese billionaire shortly and then, as President, subsequently would later go on to let China be an aggressor in the region?

Hank Scorpio

wonderfullife wrote: »

It's 100% fair for Americans and, the world, to know just how badly Russia has Trump by the balls. How much dodgy money has been pumped through Trump over the last few decades? How much does he owe and to who?

Yes it is 100% fair to know if it's true. The fact is there is no email, no phone call, no off site meetings, no bank links, no company links, nothing of substance to hammer him or people in his campaign colluding with Russia during the election.

It's all complete noise so far. How many investigations has there been now that have come back empty handed, with or without Trump's people involved. I can think of at least 2 separate FBI investigations before he was inaugurated and other congress ones.

Do you know what annoys me about the allegations? There's a bottomless pit of foreign ties and money exchange with actual evidence from email leaks yet nobody bats an eyelid, neither here or in the media. It's all forgotten about. Now the media and Democrats are attacking Sessions because he met an ambassador in his role. If there is ties I won't defend it, but it has to be a level playing field. So far all it appears to be is attacks that are purely politically motivated.

I'm not against exposing actual collusion if it happened, but the double standard in play here is downright mind numbing from the Democrats who seem to exempt from any wrongdoing of their own, in my opinion it's a media driven narrative used to disrupt Trump's administration, and that has been obvious since the poll numbers started tightening 6 months ago.

I say go right ahead, hold investigations and expose corruption, but do it for everyone in Government, not just those with an agenda. Honest question, do you think if there was ties, at least one well founded call, email, connection with actual damning transcripts or money laundering indicating election collusion it would have come to light by now when it seems the entire establishment, Democrats, intelligence agencies and media want nothing more than to nail Trump?

KingBrian2

Congratulations America you are now experiencing what we in Ireland call a tribunal. Get prepared to hear a lot of allegations of corruptions and state secrets thrown at the public.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Yes it is 100% fair to know if it's true. The fact is there is no email, no phone call, no off site meetings, no bank links, no company links, nothing of substance to hammer him or people in his campaign colluding with Russia during the election.

It's all complete noise so far. How many investigations has there been now that have come back empty handed, with or without Trump's people involved. I can think of at least 2 separate FBI investigations before he was inaugurated and other congress ones.

Do you know what annoys me about the allegations? There's a bottomless pit of foreign ties and money exchange with actual evidence from email leaks yet nobody bats an eyelid, neither here or in the media. It's all forgotten about. Now the media and Democrats are attacking Sessions because he met an ambassador in his role. If there is ties I won't defend it, but it has to be a level playing field. So far all it appears to be is attacks that are purely politically motivated.

I'm not against exposing actual collusion if it happened, but the double standard in play here is downright mind numbing from the Democrats who seem to exempt from any wrongdoing of their own, in my opinion it's a media driven narrative used to disrupt Trump's administration, and that has been obvious since the poll numbers started tightening 6 months ago.

I say go right ahead, hold investigations and expose corrupt, but do it for everyone in Government, not just those with an agenda. Honest question, do you think if there was ties, at least one well founded call, email, connection with actual damning transcripts or money laundering indicating election collusion would have come light by now when it seems the entire establishment, Democrats and media want nothing more than to nail Trump?

Have any of those investigations finished? I don't they have come up empty handed. They simply have not finished looking.

As for Sessions, no one else lied under oath about meeting them. You only investigate if you have a starting point to go on. No one is investigating Trump for potential collusion with China as there is no real links. Similarly I don't expect McCain to be investigated for links to Russia. You simply can't investigate every single politician with respect to every single country. The resources don't exist. It seems like a monumental waste of money to investigate whether or not McCain had links with Russia for instance with no real justification.

Fleawuss

So Trump gives his total support to a perjurer as AG. Bannon's agenda of destroying govt. is working well. Trump is the dumbest schmuck ever. Clueless.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

Have any of those investigations finished? I don't they have come up empty handed. They simply have not finished looking.

As for Sessions, no one else lied under oath about meeting them. You only investigate if you have a starting point to go on. No one is investigating Trump for potential collusion with China as there is no real links. Similarly I don't expect McCain to be investigated for links to Russia. You simply can't investigate every single politician with respect to every single country. The resources don't exist. It seems like a monumental waste of money to investigate whether or not McCain had links with Russia for instance with no real justification.

FBI investigations rarely ever finish afaik, what changes is how much resources/interest they gain, but what else can a judgement be based on? Below are the type of things I'm basing my opinion on. For all the hysteria nothing has come out that directly ties Russia to the Trump campaign. There's stories of people loosely associated with the campaign doing Business dealings in the past, but that's normality. I'm not going to go on about HRC, or people like McCain. FWIW his foundation received millions in donations from Saudi Arabia while he was in office. It's the same deal with the Clinton's, if you have a "non profit" organisation, you can use it illicit payments from foreign governments as a cover.

For someone who has an opposite viewpoint from many people here, I can say the media bias and prorogation of the Russia stories has been going into overdrive. One thing all these stories lack, is some kind of factual damning piece of evidence. You here things like calls, but they never post any part of the transcripts. You hear Business dealings occurred, but they never post the details or when it happened. It's the same now with Sessions, they edited his transcript to make it look more damning that it was actually was.



https://twitter.com/AP/status/837358714529136642

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

"WASHINGTON — For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.b9cb6167b848

"FBI reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit"

26000 Elephants

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Yes it is 100% fair to know if it's true. The fact is there is no email, no phone call, no off site meetings, no bank links, no company links, nothing of substance to hammer him or people in his campaign colluding with Russia during the election.

Sessions lie was probably to prevent any of the above being relevant. Now that his lie has been exposed, they can start looking into it in more detail.

I see Kushner is now involved in the Russia story. Why was this hidden from us?

Hank Scorpio

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Sessions lie was probably to prevent any of the above being relevant. Now that his lie has been exposed, they can start looking into it in more detail.

I see Kushner is now involved in the Russia story. Why was this hidden from us?

They've been looking into it since the summer.

If Kushner did something wrong that is tied to election collusion it should be exposed. But again there's no damning evidence of wrongdoing. Why it wasn't mentioned is a fair question.

“They generally discussed the relationship and it made sense to establish a line of communication,” she told the Times.

“Jared has had meetings with many other foreign countries and representatives — as many as two dozen other foreign countries’ leaders and representatives.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/322093-michael-flynn-and-jared-kushner-met-with-russian-ambassador-before

Akrasia

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

They've been looking into it since the summer.

If Kushner did something wrong that is tied to election collusion it should be exposed. But again there's no damning evidence of wrongdoing. Why it wasn't mentioned is a fair question.

“They generally discussed the relationship and it made sense to establish a line of communication,” she told the Times.

“Jared has had meetings with many other foreign countries and representatives — as many as two dozen other foreign countries’ leaders and representatives.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/322093-michael-flynn-and-jared-kushner-met-with-russian-ambassador-before

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Queue presidential impeachment proceedings.

What's Ken Starr up to these days?